Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 96 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 15318
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-00757-REP
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, OLD MICRO,
`INC. F/K/A VELOCITY MICRO, INC., AND
`VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PARTIES’ REVISED PROPOSED PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE
`
`Pursuant to the Pretrial Conference held on April 15, 2015 and the Court’s Order (Dkt.
`
`No. 85), Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Samsung”) and Defendants NVIDIA Corporation, Old Micro, Inc. f/k/a Velocity
`
`Micro, Inc., and Velocity Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), by counsel, jointly submit
`
`the Parties’ Revised Proposed Pre-Trial Schedules.
`
`The parties submit an agreed schedule for Samsung’s patent infringement claims against
`
`NVIDIA. That schedule is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`The parties also submit separate proposed pre-trial schedules and trial dates for
`
`NVIDIA’s patent infringement counterclaims against Samsung. Those separate proposals are
`
`shown in Exhibit B, which includes the agreed dates for Samsung’s infringement claims that are
`
`also in Exhibit A, along with the parties’ proposed schedules for NVIDIA’s counterclaims of
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 96 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 15319
`
`
`infringement against Samsung. The parties’ separate proposed pre-trial schedules and trial dates
`
`for NVIDIA’s patent infringement counterclaims against Samsung are attached as Exhibit C.
`
`The parties’ respective positions on the appropriate pre-trial schedule for NVIDIA’s
`
`counterclaims are as follows:
`
`NVIDIA’s Position
`
`On April 6, 2015, the parties conducted a Rule 26(f) Conference. In its initial scheduling
`
`order, the Court set the deadline for amending pleadings for April 10, 2015. The parties agreed
`
`to a short extension of this date to April 15, 2015 for NVIDIA to file its counterclaims. On April
`
`14, 2014, NVIDIA filed its counterclaims. Accordingly, NVIDIA’s counterclaims were timely
`
`included in this case pursuant to the Court’s initial scheduling order. NVIDIA has agreed to
`
`proceed under the agreed-upon schedule with respect to its initial obligations as Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiff, such as the service of initial infringement contentions, and has agreed to provide
`
`Samsung with additional time to respond to NVIDIA’s counterclaims. Thus, for its patent
`
`infringement counterclaims, NVIDIA proposes that it serve its infringement contentions on April
`
`21 (the same date that Samsung’s infringement contentions are due) and simultaneously (and
`
`one month early) provide its first asserted claim selection of 48 asserted claims.1 Samsung will
`
`then have one month, until May 22, to provide its invalidity contentions based on NVIDIA’s
`
`narrowed selection of claims. Under NVIDIA’s proposed schedule, the remainder of the
`
`Markman proceedings for NVIDIA’s counterclaims will proceed two weeks after the schedule
`
`for Samsung’s claims, allowing NVIDIA’s patent infringement counterclaims against Samsung
`
`
`1 Samsung proposes that NVIDIA limit its first asserted claim selection to 32 claims and that
`NVIDIA limit its second asserted claim selection to 16 claims. NVIDIA will agree to those
`limits (without any limit per patents) if those limits apply to both parties so that Samsung is
`likewise limited to a first asserted claim selection of 32 claims and a second asserted claim
`selection of 16 claims.
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 96 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 15320
`
`
`be tried together with Samsung’s claims against Defendants in a single proceeding or promptly
`
`thereafter in a second trial, as it pleases the Court.
`
`Samsung’s Position
`
`NVIDIA filed its motion to add counterclaims on April 14, 2015, alleging infringement
`
`of 47 claims in four patents. By Court order, Samsung will file its motion to sever the
`
`counterclaims on April 24, 2015; Defendants will file their response by May 8, 2015; and
`
`Samsung will file its reply on May 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 85. While Samsung is glad to propose a
`
`schedule for resolving NVIDIA’s claims against Samsung, Samsung believes that entering such
`
`a schedule at this time is premature. The Court requested briefing on the issue of severance, and
`
`that briefing will be completed on May 15, 2015. Samsung believes that the parties should
`
`revisit the scheduling issues related to NVIDIA’s counterclaims following a decision on the
`
`motion to sever. If the Court is inclined to consider scheduling issues related to NVIDIA’s
`
`counterclaims against Samsung now, Samsung proposes that it answer (or otherwise respond to)
`
`NVIDIA’s counterclaims on May 21, 2015 (5 weeks after NVIDIA filed its counterclaims).2
`
`Samsung proposes that it will provide initial disclosures within one week following its response
`
`to the counterclaims (6 weeks after the counterclaims were filed), and it will produce documents
`
`sufficient to show the operation of the accused instrumentalities (to the extent Samsung has such
`
`documents) less than four weeks thereafter (and less than 10 weeks after the counterclaims were
`
`filed). Under Samsung’s proposal, it will then provide invalidity contentions one week later (on
`
`July 1, 2015). Samsung’s proposed schedule has trial set for just under one year from the date
`
`that NVIDIA filed its counterclaims against Samsung.
`
`
`
`2 NVIDIA has agreed to this extension, and the parties will submit an agreed motion and
`proposed order providing for the extension.
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 96 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 15321
`
`
`April 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`By Counsel
`
`/s/ Robert W. McFarland
`Robert W. McFarland (VSB No. 24021)
`Sarah K. McConaughy (VSB No. 80674)
`McGuireWoods LLP
`101 W. Main Street, Suite 9000
`Norfolk, Virginia 23510
`Telephone: (757) 640-3716
`E-mail: rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com
`E-mail: smcconaughy@mcguirewoods.com
`
`Brian C. Riopelle (VSB No. 36454)
`McGuireWoods LLP
`One James Center 901 E. Cary Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`Telephone: (804) 775-1084
`E-mail: briopelle@mcguirewoods.com
`
`Darin W. Snyder (Pro Hac Vice)
`Alexander B. Parker (Pro Hac Vice)
`Elysa Q. Wan (Pro Hac Vice)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`E-mail: dsnyder@omm.com
`E-mail: aparker@omm.com
`E-mail: ewan@omm.com
`
`Vision L. Winter (Pro Hac Vice)
`Ryan K. Yagura (Pro Hac Vice)
`Michael A. Koplow (Pro Hac Vice)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`E-mail: vwinter@omm.com
`E-mail: ryagura@omm.com
`E-mail: mkoplow@omm.com
`
`Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 96 Filed 04/21/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 15322
`
`
`April 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, OLD MICRO, INC.
`F/K/A VELOCITY MICRO, INC., AND
`VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC
`By Counsel
`
`
`/s/ Dabney J. Carr
`Dabney J. Carr, IV, VSB No. 28679
`dabney.carr@troutmansanders.com
`Robert A. Angle, VSB No. 37691
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219
`Telephone: (804) 697-1200
`
`Maximilian A. Grant (pro hac vice)
`max.grant@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Telephone: (212) 906-1200
`Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
`
`Counsel for NVIDIA Corporation, Old Micro, Inc.
`f/k/a Velocity Micro, Inc., and Velocity Holdings,
`LLC
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 96 Filed 04/21/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 15323
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on April 21, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed
`
`electronically using the CM/ECF system. As such, this document was served on all counsel who
`have consented to electronic service, including as follows:
`
`Dabney Jefferson Carr, IV
`
` Troutman Sanders LLP
` 1001 Haxall Point
` Richmond, VA 23219
` Telephone: 804-697-1238
` Facsimile: 804-698-5119
` Email: Dabney.carr@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`Clement Joseph Naples
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`885 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: 212-906-1200
`Facsimile: 212-906-1201
`Email: clement.naples@lw.com
`
`Maximillan Grant
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: 202-637-2200
`Facsimile: 202-637-2201
`Email: max.grant@lw.com
`
`
` Counsel for NIVIDIA Corporation,
` Velocity Micro, Ind., d/b/a Velocity Micro
` and Velocity Holdings, LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert W. McFarland
`Robert W. McFarland (VSB No. 24021)
`Sarah K. McConaughy (VSB No. 80674)
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`101 West Main Street, Suite 9000
`Norfolk, Virginia 23510
`Telephone: (757) 640-3716
`Facsimile: (757) 640-3966
`E-mail: rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com
`Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`